Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[SaStrike]

Ok

I personally would pull the lever to save the lives, but I would NOT conduct the organ transplants.

I agree that the thought experiments are not equivalent, but I disagree as to why. In both scenarios, there is a force which threatens the lives of five people. In both scenarios you can either NOT ACT which will result in the death of five people-- or you can ACT which will save five people but BECAUSE YOU ACTED one person will die. Why do you think you have "control and responsibility" in one situation and not the other? I would say in BOTH situations you have responsibility and (limited) control.

If you are going to argue that you don't have responsibility in the organ scenario, what is it  essentially that makes it different from the runaway trolley?

When I used the word 'responsibility', I meant an immediate, personal decision to throw the lever or not, and therefore responsible for what outcome happens. There is no escape from this responsibility because either way, you were the indirect cause of someone's death. 

In the organ scenario, there are no circumstance that make it your responsibility to decide something because inaction will not make you an indirect cause of someone's death. If you feel you have a responsibility to find a solution, then those feelings are a result of reasoning from a very specific moral system, not of the circumstances.

When I used the word 'responsibility', I meant an immediate, personal decision to operate or not, and therefore responsible for what outcome happens. There is no escape from this responsibility because either way, you were the indirect cause of someone's death. 

In the trolley scenario, there are no circumstance that make it your responsibility to decide something because inaction will not make you an indirect cause of someone's death. If you feel you have a responsibility to find a solution, then those feelings are a result of reasoning from a very specific moral system, not of the circumstances.